Articles

The tragic “friendly fire” incident at the weekend, in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were allegedly killed in a NATO airstrike, raises many questions. Who shot first? How should Pakistan respond? What is the future for the already traumatized U.S.-Pakistan relationship?

But surely the biggest question, after a decade of conflict, is this:
Should the United States even have launched military action in
Afghanistan in the first place? And was the magnitude of the attacks on
September 11, 2001, so great as to mean there was no choice but to
launch military operations?

Setting aside the support of the international community, the United
States still chose to act unilaterally against Afghanistan, claiming
self–defense. There was much debate at the time over the legality of the
initial use of force. Yet the devastation that the people of
Afghanistan and Pakistan have experienced over the last decade as U.S.
and coalition forces have battled Taliban militias almost makes that
debate seem trite.

Interestingly, the justification for the war has transformed from
self-defense, to an even less well defined fight against global
terrorism. Meanwhile, Pakistan-based Taliban have replaced al-Qaeda as
the central enemy in a war that has gradually come to be seen by Afghans
as regime enforcement.

Whatever the reason given for military action, it has become
increasingly clear that a dangerous precedent was set in Afghanistan.
The justification for the use of force as self-defense has been
increasingly utilized by opportunistic states to meet the challenge of
insurgents and rebels, and this unwanted development of the doctrine of
pre-emptive and preventive self-defense now poses a grave threat to
international peace and security.

In addition, it also appears to be a mistake for coalition forces,
acting under the mandate of the UN Security Council, to indulge in peace
enforcement rather than just peacekeeping initiatives in Afghanistan.
After all, history has shown that such aggressive use of force has
typically worsened conflicts, as witnessed in Somalia.

Indeed, as underscored by events at the weekend, the fight against
Taliban militants has now spilled over into Pakistan, where civilian
causalities far outnumber those of combatants. This is in large part due
to the U.S. insistence of using drone attacks to target militants,
attacks that have had only sporadic success, even as they have killed
scores of civilians, thus fueling extremism and resentment in Pakistan.

Against this backdrop, the United States has avoided providing proper legal justification for drone attacks,
which violate Pakistani sovereignty. When confronted on the issue, the
Obama administration responds in vague terms that it has a right to
defend itself. The Pakistani military, for its part, has generally
stayed quiet over the issue.

Yet although the U.S. and Pakistani governments may have until
recently been in tacit agreement over the drone strikes, these
extra-judicial killings should be seen as illegal under international
law, in violation of the Constitution of Pakistan, and without the
support of the people of Pakistan.

This isn’t to dismiss the dangers posed by Taliban militants, which
are very real. The fostering of an environment of repression and
intolerance – the Talibanization of society in the Pakistan-Afghan
border regions – has created a level of anarchy that challenges the very
fabric of society. It must be halted before irreparable harm results.
But tackling Talibanization requires a multi-faceted approach that as
well as recognizing the reasons behind this process, also mandates
addressing the root causes of radicalism and militarism. This approach
should center on the peaceful resolution of all disputes, the fostering
of nation-building through political dialogue and compromise, the
strengthening of democracy, and the supremacy of the rule of law.
Poverty, corruption and ethnic discrimination also need to be
systematically addressed.

How can the United States most usefully contribute? By immediately
bringing to a halt its aggressive military strategy. Specifically, the
U.S. should immediately stop drone attacks in both Afghanistan and
Pakistan; withdraw its troops from Afghanistan at the earliest possible
time and in the interim, U.S. and ISAF forces should only partake in
peacekeeping operations. Also, the U.S. and others shouldn’t provide
unaccounted for military aid to the Pakistan Army.

The Pakistani establishment, for its part, should look more to
non-military means of dealing with the conflict. For a start, it should
engage in genuine political dialogue with militants in control of the
FATA regions to try to find a political solution to the conflict without
compromising its position on sovereignty in relation to both the U.S
and the militants. In addition, it should also institute measures to
guarantee that its armed forces are conducting all operations in a
transparent manner, in compliance with human rights and international
humanitarian law. In this respect the media, civil society and
humanitarian organizations must be allowed to function independently in
war-torn areas.

And the international community also has a role to play, not least by
being more proactive in trying to influence U.S and NATO forces in the
Pakistan-Afghan region. In addition, it should also hold Pakistan more
accountable for its violation of human rights treaties and international
law, and take concrete measures that respect local values, customs and
religion, but which also improve protections for human rights. After
all, aggression against civilians is not only a violation of the Geneva
Conventions, but also the Islamic Law of Nations.

Ultimately, unilateralist behavior by powerful states who achieve
their objectives while violating the territorial sovereignty of weaker
states is extremely damaging to interstate norms. Instead, powerful
nations should resist the temptation to flex their muscles and instead
focus on diplomacy, political dialogue, and compromise – and the
international community should put pressure on them to do so.

Such an approach isn’t just right in and of itself, but will also
give greater impetus to the development and recognition of multilateral
judicial institutions that are best placed to address conflicts.

This article was first published by The Diplomat on November 30, 2011. Read it here.

Like our work? consider making a donationYour tax-deductible donation will help to bring new voices and ideas to the public discourse and help shape the future of our nation's most pressing policy issues.